beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of four years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants (fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)
A. 1) The business of importing gold in African claims related to the Defendants’ deception or deception-related intentional fraud (hereinafter “the instant gold-import business”).
(i) the I Triart Project (hereinafter “instant I Triart Project”)
) The gold-import business was feasible at the time of receiving money from the victim. However, the gold-import business in this case was a deviation from the KBS employee and the cancellation of the official document of the head office, and it became impossible for the instant I to realize it ex post facto by the JJ’s failure to conduct appraisal business. In addition, Malaysia’s business is a “O hotel supply business” (hereinafter “instant O hotel supply business”), and it is a “each business of this case” in this case, referring to the three projects.
(2) The Defendants did not intend to obtain money from the Defendants at the time of the instant act of deception, even if they did not intend to obtain money from the Defendants at the time of the instant act of deception. (2) The Defendants’ assertion related to the establishment of joint principal offense by the Defendants were to hear the explanation of each of the instant projects from the Defendants and to lend money from the victims under their responsibility. As such, the Defendants did not procure money from D to borrow money from the victims as to the interest on the deposit necessary for the receipt of money from the victims, the I set acquisition fund, and the O hotel delivery project.
In other words, the Defendants are not joint principal offenders with respect to each of the instant fraud crimes.
Even if the defendants conspired to commit the fraud of D, all of the projects of this case led the business and made all decisions related thereto, and the defendant A shall be paid the previous debt by the defendant B.